Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 9/9] chardev: tcp: postpone TLS work until machine done

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:13:59AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:44:09AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:36:50PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > diff --git a/chardev/char-socket.c b/chardev/char-socket.c
> > > > index bd40864f87..997c70dd7d 100644
> > > > --- a/chardev/char-socket.c
> > > > +++ b/chardev/char-socket.c
> > > > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> > > >  #include "qemu/option.h"
> > > >  #include "qapi/error.h"
> > > >  #include "qapi/clone-visitor.h"
> > > > +#include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
> > > >  
> > > >  #include "chardev/char-io.h"
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -722,6 +723,11 @@ static void tcp_chr_tls_init(Chardev *chr)
> > > >      Error *err = NULL;
> > > >      gchar *name;
> > > >  
> > > > +    if (!machine_init_done) {
> > > > +        /* This will be postponed to machine_done notifier */
> > > > +        return;
> > > > +    }
> > > > +
> > > >      if (s->is_listen) {
> > > >          tioc = qio_channel_tls_new_server(
> > > >              s->ioc, s->tls_creds,
> > > > @@ -1145,6 +1151,10 @@ static int tcp_chr_machine_done_hook(Chardev *chr)
> > > >          tcp_chr_connect_async(chr);
> > > >      }
> > > >  
> > > > +    if (s->tls_creds) {
> > > > +        tcp_chr_tls_init(chr);
> > > > +    }
> > > 
> > > This looks questionable - AFAICT, there's no guarantee we have any
> > > client connection active when the machine dnoe hook runs. Only if
> > > the chardev is set in client mode, and reconnect_time is *not* set,
> > > but this seems to be run unconditionally.
> > 
> > You are right.  Thanks for spotting that.
> > 
> > Then how about this?  It's a bit ugly, but I think it should be safe:
> 
> Is it perhaps not possible to just check if  's->ioc' is non-NULL
> in the tcp_chr_machine_done_hook for your original patch ?

In tcp_chr_new_client() I see that s->ioc will be set no matter what,
and that function can even be called without TLS enabled I think.
Does that mean only check against s->ioc would not be enough?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu